Saturday, November 7, 2020

An Authenticity Crisis

  Saturday, November 7, 2020

An Authenticity Crisis

What accompanies an authenticity crisis? The very thing that brought it about– idleness. And idleness breeds temptations by the flesh. But however we get there, we're there– what happens then? The prayer life despite being followed suddenly feels insincere. The very liturgy of the hours that upholds the public office of the church is suddenly scrutinized. If I pray with others, shouldn't I feel their sense of prayer? It's a call to prayer isn't it? Liturgy of the hours. What does liturgy mean? These things, I haven't thought before but I knew love wasn't present as a tendency to resentfulness occupied me. But what I need to realize is that the thing I'm projecting on others is the very thing I need for myself. The public prayer life always comes with the temptation to consider authenticity– when we pray with others we either are insecure if we are praying as "hard" as others or if others aren't praying as sincerely as us.

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:5-6)

And it's in the latter verse where I'm tripping up. I pray the liturgy of the hours or the rosary and it doesn't feel as rewarding. I'm just doing prayer rather than paying attention to that inward sense of God in the midst. My lips move but my heart hardens. I'm in that point where it's hard to believe God can forgive a person who sins not long after He's forgiven him. And I know that's the incredible love God has for us. I know that. I should want to participate in this love through prayer. But how I've let myself fallen that now prayer is an obstacle because I've (and am) taking it for granted. Can I go to confession in 30 minutes with this? I'm confused more than I am contrite. The answer is probably yes. The temptations are sneaky then, aren't they? Cunning almost. It has attacked the foundation I've built up to try and combat it (prayer) by zeroing in on my sin that started this whole week. But perhaps I've forgotten what Father Casey was saying. I should strive to live a holy life not solely a pure one, for purity comes from living a holy life. 

I should probably go, and I should probably walk instead of driving there. What have I done today that's worthy of the convenience of driving? I know I'm called there because there is where I can find myself and work on my relationship with God to a greater authenticity and with a greater assent of faith. 

I'm coming Lord, for even as I sin do I still continue to search you. Forgive your prideful sinner and humble him to your love, impart knowledge and courage to resist temptation so that he may participate in the love that You freely give. Amen.

Wednesday, October 7, 2020

the little air

  October 6, 2020


the little air

Ah, a sigh escaped me;

the little air left over,

that fleeting relief:

mystifying


silently, the little spirit dissipated;

a world vaporized

from being held over

a summery haze,

released into the flow

of turbulent waves ebbing

through a mess of particles in motion

transformed by tiny touches–


oh grace!

 of invisible states

unknown to the eye,

yet unconsciously felt

in every exhale that I

exist in ecstacy,

being-there,

the little air

I am


Saturday, October 3, 2020

For a river falls

October 2, 2020

 For a river falls


For a river falls

to wintry torpor,

with spring winds over

summer sun's setting,

to gather anon.


For a river falls

from the ebbing shore, 

perennial twilight

timing our brief waves,

to become its source.


Tuesday, August 25, 2020

On Jean-Luc Marion's Phenomenology of Faith via Givenness

  August 24, 2020

Couple thoughts about Jean-Luc Marion's Phenomenology of Faith via Givenness

A photo of the Georgetown Waterfront from a run I had

It is easy to do a Bible study and to say that God speaks to me through the readings, that faith is a "given". But really, what does that mean? Do we take faith to be given as "a given", or a dogmatic assumption? I was thinking about this today on my walk. How do I engage with other people such as atheists or those of other faiths, if we don't take (theologically) faith as a given? 

To define the parameter of faith here includes the assumption of a God. And I agree with this. However, I think this is a conclusion of the finding that faith is given. The philosopher-theologian Jean-Luc Marion takes this question up in his work through God without Being to the series that begins with Givenness and Revelation. Contrary to Heidegger, who thinks that Dasein is the primary and basic pre-theoretical feature of Being, Marion provides a correction that the character of "givenness" is the beginning. As far as I understand it, this is going back to Descartes, whom all of the aforementioned phenomenologists seem to need to take their shot at. But the context is that Descartes begins with a radical position from a radical method: from doubting everything he could doubt, he comes up with the theory "cogito ergo sum", I think therefore I am. 

Marion, in Descartes' Passive Thought , focuses more on Descartes' other conclusion "Ego Sum Ego Existo", I am, therefore I exist. While I have yet to complete his work, I have found from his analysis of the 6th meditation and the passions that Descartes' position does not fundamentally doubt the body's role in all this. That is, when we doubt everything we could possibly doubt, it is not so certain that Descartes doubts the body. Sure he can say that maybe a demon messed with him and made him think he had a body, but the characteristic of having a body is not removed from the action of thought. "I think (with a body) that I am, therefore I exist (with a body)". It is possible, from Marion's reading, that it was just unquestionable despite Descartes' methodology rooted in what was coming to be known as the virtue of science (questioning all assumptions); that the assurance and quality of having a body is embedded into how he even comes up with it. This sounds a lot like the kind of territory that the premiere phenomenologist of the body, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, was going on about. And this makes sense, given that even he returns to Descartes in his later lectures. Of course, this could just be another assumption unquestioned, but that's the sort of fundamental ground of analyzing the phenomena that phenomenologists are interested in (intentionality a la Husserl). Science, not even philosophy of science, wouldn't be that committed to digging that deep in questioning their assumptions because this puts them in the territory of philosophy (this word is used rather pejoratively in this context).

With the centrality of the body rooted in the primer to modern philosophy, phenomenology seems to be making progress here towards many applications such as identity, health, illness, etc. But with Marion's own center of his phenomenology, that of "givenness", roots one who walks along his path of thought with theology infused with phenomenology. The character of givenness– the phenomena that we encounter having the quality of being given– invokes or implies a background idea of a "giver". In contrast with Early Heidegger's Protagoras-esque Man is the Measure of all means path of thought in Being and Time, Marion paves a path found in the more humbled (feeling, with stubborn hermit inclinations, the consequences of his idealistic mistake registering in the National Socialist German Workers party) Later Heidegger, who takes a more theological approach to the question of being. 

For Marion, as with Descartes' Passive thought (thinking with the body), being is the characteristic of givenness that we take as fundamental and that we don't ponder about much in our everyday existence. The world of the given here has yet to take a definite theological tone, however. One can merely assert that the characteristic of givenness may be just that, a characteristic of experience. Evolutionary interpretations may take that to be just part of our genetic coding or wiring left over from a previous trait that, either by coincidence (vestigial) or by deliberate natural selection, we would be more "oriented" to that approach. However, this goes beyond the scope of phenomenology, which focuses on the phenomena (the things themselves) and how we experience it. In other words, we would follow Husserl and "bracket it out" (epoché), and put that reductionist explanation aside, especially if it doesn't help our phenomenological investigation. Such "orientation" may as well be characterized for the religious as how God "[formed] man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7). And I didn't intend to connect the concept of ground (post-modernity's bread and butter) and the phenomenology of breath (see Havi Carel, Frederik Svenaeus, etc. on illness analyses); but I certainly thought it while typing it.

So, what now with givenness? Well, describing being within the ground of givenness, one can take in Jesus' theological stride to make Simon Peter, the doubting apostle, the "rock [He] will build [His] church" with and whom to give the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19), and reflect on this phenomenologically. While we may doubt that which is given (be it from confusion, anxiety, or existential inquiry), Christianity argues faith arises out of a gift by recognizing the giver of the given as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As Paul writes "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8) and such faith enters us through love as "God is love" (1 John 4). This is where Marion ties up how the description of givenness is fulfilled wholly by Catholic-Christian doctrine as the "gift" is manifested in the Eucharist, the bread as the body of Christ, and of the Church as the body of Christ instituted by Christ (see Called to Communion, Pope Emeritus Ratzinger). This is also where Marion turns from philosophy (via phenomenology) to theology, by taking "This Jesus [as] the stone which, rejected by you builders, has become the chief stone supporting all the rest" (Acts 4:11), and by fusing phenomenologically the given body with the Christian soul, giving kind of a dualistic twist but more a hermeneutical interpretation rooted in the ahistory of the Bible and the history of man's existence. 

At this point Marion takes up the theologian's humility and would take his theology just to be mere applied philosophy/science, that is, applying "reason" to discover more about God's creation/design for us as creatures. All of this can be undertaken without the scholastic acrobatics that Thomism, while important, because it draws upon the investigation into subjectivity of faith that began with St. Augustine and continued with Pascal, Kierkegaard and then initially with really early Heidegger (back when he was in the seminary); there's likely many in between but I'm not aware of them, I admit. Because an investigation into faith begets an investigation into the giver, which then leads back to the given; we come to know God so that we may know ourselves, as St. Augustine says– Noverim Te, Noverim me.

Friday, May 1, 2020

On Badiou's In Praise of Love

April 30, 2020


Blog 8: On Badiou's "In Praise of Love"



It's half past midnight and I have just finished reading Alain Badiou's "In praise of love" in one sitting. I had a mind to write my initial impressions but have come to type these letters now to reflect more closely on the nature of my philosophical drives. It is captivating for Badiou's rather different translation of Book V of the Republic to let socrates speak:

Anyone who doesn't take love as their starting point will never discover what philosophy is about.
And I'm led to reflect more deeply on this because this is precisely what I got into this whole philosophy business (or hobby) in the first place! It was in fact Jackie's inquisitiveness and curiosity, while in the throes of love, that has seeded in me the origin of my awakening– love was the seed, the thoughts and actions that ensued, its conditions. And I think that what led me to this book, that analysis of that Rick and Morty episode on online dating by Wisecrack (see embed video below), got Badiou wrong. I was led to believe that Badiou was philosophizing saying that love is about tenacity and endurance. And boy that was definitely not what Badiou is saying at all! Well he does say it, but only in part. And taking the part to represent the whole is a dangerous affair. With Wisecrack, it appears to serve their purposes in explaining the critique given by the episode of Rick and Morty– to shit on online dating apps just as Badiou did on online dating sites. But this is where Wisecrack stops Badiou rather abruptly. Where they emphasize love's longevity (which primarily attracted me), they fail to mention this longevity as more than just the mood of escaping the "happily ever after" framework.

What they fail to mention is the more profound beginnings Badiou alludes to, of which Husserl christens philosophy as the science of conceptions that requires a perpetual beginner– that is that love is "minimal communism"; love is a "two-scene", love is ultimately a "truth process". These concepts, albeit fairly new to me, resonate in me because they help clarify the kind of universality of love that I got to realize by this artful project. I came here on Wisecrack's quote thinking I can see if I can identify with this love as tenacity, trying to justify what I went through with Jackie as being precisely that– of a particular instance. But I was wrong; and glad to be.

Love, as I understand him, is an affirmation of the eternal that is juxtaposed in the temporal life. Just like philosophy, love is a perpetual beginner. As Badiou quotes Sarkovsky, Love requires reinvention. In such a way, perhaps I can add that love is itself a philosophy. Moreso, the philosophy of love is indeed the philosophy of philosophy qua loving wisdom.

I wonder about my thomistic friends/professors in SMC who reaffirm Aquinas' mantra that Love is to will the Good of the other, with the underlying Christian theme of the givenness of love, which has been ever so powerful on me as my Catholicism buds with the help of Augustine's Confessions.

And it seems to me that my general point, my purpose and driving force behind my pursuit in philosophy– into questions of ontology, phenomenology, existentialism– all is driven from this fundamental seed of love. And I've expressed in numerous blogs how I'm grateful to Jackie for implanting philosophy into me but perhaps I can recant this now and offer a clearer thought– Jackie helped the conditions for my philosophical soul to emerge, like fertilizer or water or sunlight. She became my conception of the "Good", as Iris Murdoch's conception of a good love speaks.

And it's now clear to me, at least in this moment, that most thematically, I end up thinking about love in the philosophy I read. Iris Murdoch x Simone Weil's conception of love as a distinct form of attention held up by our moral/ontological commitments to the good or lack thereof (making "bad love" as a neglect of the Good, fitting in the Christian framework). Aquinas/Augustine frameworks of love in terms of the transcendent Lord and Christ for us. The existentialist counterargument of a secular (in one extreme) or humanist existential form of love.

And I think Badiou was able to help push these thoughts I've reflected on love further. And in good timing. With the chains of love that I've been bounded on are loosened and my existential crisis averted, I can now see more authentically how this fits into my life and how Badiou's conception seems to be at least a more clear definition of this sense of love that I have experienced, and perhaps haven't given up on (or have? his distinction between friendship and love becomes murky to me when considering a love lost but recovered as friendship?).

Either way, the 108 or less pages that I read from front to back was clear and stimulating enough for me to be able to think those thoughts he has written to impart onto my own consciousness. There is much thought to be thunk that stimulates my brain and soul to meditate on further. For as a Christian I'm obliged to read other secular works in the light of Christ, and hence in the light of love (qua agape); and I can begin to sketch those details in my head already. But in the intermediary of this now, I can understand the framework in the appreciation of its technicality– of the work's ability to synthesize conceptions of love with its own past conceptions and also fused with my own notions. It is profound but not overly so, because it takes its stance on love with much care and especially with its reflection on theater and how philosophers at the end of the day are actors (albeit sometimes unaware of it).

The overall performance of it, and the phenomenological underpinnings, leads to the description of love phenomenologically, of which despite Heidegger only mentioned in passing in a citation of Derrida's book on him, that strengthens the hermeneutic project that the hermit Heidegger had begun on his own, that has affected the generations and beyond after him. This talk on love goes down to the level of questioning being itself, of which I'm particularly interested in as an academic and truth-pursuing exercise. I keep saying I agree with Badiou on most parts because I'm reticent to dive into its metaphysical commitments, but am thankful for the lines he draws on what he is talking about and his explanation of how he uses the jargon he uses, which he humbly acknowledges but can't seem to not use.

The name of my game is being, that of which medicine has practically and metaphysically supplements. The way Badiou talks about love as truth seeking and how it is "two not one" and all, helps me interpret it phenomenologically in my own way– that I see love as yet another manifestation, or dimension of being. And as the conclusion which I think I'm to arrive at but have yet to trace a line to– that being is time (as Heidegger claims in "Time and Being")– becomes more clear, the more that I'm renewed to pursue it again with Socrates' requirement in mind for philosophy. Not merely a sense of wonder but also with love as the basis and starting point of that sense of wonder.

Dogmatism beware, as I tread and tiptoe between the lines of blasphemy and doxa; I risk the failings of both in pursuit of the truth that love, philosophy, human consciousness, takes as its meaning. And in the end, it seems that Christianity may win at the end, as I think I'll inevitably admit as descript: love is given. And what is given, must imply the giver. This win, which drives the whole "comedy" gamut of Christianity, that love wins at the end, is not mutually exclusive, I think, with the human flourishing, of exploring concepts as they circulate and exist in our space and time, because ultimately I still see this whole adventure as part of the journey towards revelation and truth via Faith, Hope and Charity, either way. I can only hope that grace can nudge me in the right direction before it's too late (and I mean too late not temporally as in after x amount of years and x amount of days, but rather the orientation of the soul willingly losing its trajectory).


Wednesday, April 15, 2020

on Sincerity is Scary

April 14, 2020
Blog 7: on Sincerity is Scary


I messaged my long estranged older sister with a belated birthday message, to the ire of my little sisters who thought I put too much effort in it. I replied "sincerity is scary", quoting the 1975's tried and true single from their latest album "A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships". I then proceeded to listen to the song, having not listened to it for months now. I had instead been shuffling a playlist of the songs I listened to in high school, trying to find a piece of myself that was lost. 

As I listen to the song (and subsequently the whole album), I can hear a little bit past the 1975's rather outlandish brand of pretentious yet catchy lyrics about postmodernism, kitsch, and what not. There was a theme that suddenly clicked when in "love it if we made it", Healy sings "modernity has failed us, but I love it if we made it". This kind of critical reflection is both regretful but at the same time authentic in affirming the saying 'love it if we made it'. This rather pithy remark of blasé optimism captures the kind of mood that brings about a nihilistic yet Camusian brand of absurdism: "The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart." (see Myth of Sisyphus). Although Camus ends this essay the sentence after this with "One must imagine sisyphus happy", that kind of idealism that powered the existentialist movement would be lost to us living in our present age. 

And this is exactly the kind of thing that defines what the 1975 is more than their reference to Kerouac's On the Road. Their music which sounds outside its time, which harkens back to exactly that age (late 1970s-80s) that tries to use its platform to challenge, synthesize and question the norm, is a tough balancing act. The melodies are catchy and even sometimes outlandish to the point that some people sing along to it anyway like the previous generation sang to Anthony Kiedis' Californication ("psychic spies from china try to steal your mind's elation"?). So in a way the general following that professes to "like" the 1975 would be people who chant their mantra without much thought besides the feeling of the hook: "and I love it if we made it"; yeah that makes sense let's chant it again! This is pushed back by their die hard fans who profess to relate to the band's mission, creating some kind of youth movement. But the 1975 are too vague to be profound, instead fueling the agendas of their box fans in the general "air" of their mannerisms from british accents to using the strange words they use in regular conversation. Emotionally enflamed, a 1975 concert would ignite a die hard crowd with an paradox: each one having their own relation to their understanding of what the 1975 is trying to tell everyone while also contradicting the guy to their right or the woman two rows ahead.


But I am giving them (both the band and the fans) too much credit. It is rather the central theme of love that the 1975 takes as their muse, which they situate their nostalgia (but not) brand in our present time. There seems to always be some kind of other nostalgia they are opposing though, so they don't embrace nostalgia in general. For example, in "Nana", Healy sings about his grandma's ("nana") death, grieving with this bittersweet tune: "I don't like it now you're dead, it's not the same when I scratch my own head, I haven't got the nails for it". Following up this rather morbid tune is setting up the opposition: "I know that God doesn't exist, and all of the love that surrounded it, but I like to think you hear me sometimes"; which is a flagrantly poetic statement of atheism. It is painted as nostalgia but also as a revisionist nostalgia, the kind that obviously beckons the "viewing the world through rose tinted glasses" cliché; a kind of confirmation bias for a dusty memory stowed in a closet, forgotten to be moved into the even dustier attic. 

Yet the solution in this song isn't even a viable alternative to the religious life. Healy suggests poetry and songwriting to help him deal with death: "melody line for you tonight... think that's how to make things feel alright. Made in my room this simple tune, always keep me close to you. The crowds will sing, the voices ring and it's like you never left; but I'm bereft you see, I think you can tell– I haven't been doing too well...". But even then it's sad but perhaps he is a realist– wallowing in a sad reality at least is living in reality for what it is. But even this falls apart– he's still "bereft" despite the empty response he gets when he tries to call his nana to him (in spite of the chanting crowds). The only optimistic take home one can take is that reflection is a somber solution that can help one get by. It's "authentic" and "real".

But really what is description without action? As C.S. Lewis is often quoted: "Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil". In our secular time, this may seem rather decrepit and outdated while also making a little bit of sense if we remove the religious connotations to "devil" and just use the colloquial term. But even the colloquial term has hidden within it the etymological history of slandering and attacking. Rooted in this term is that idea that if people don't have normative rules that they refine through education, they are just reinforcing the nature to debase another person for one's own gain. 

And so, even after coming back to the 1975 after a trite counter remark to my little sister's comment, I can feel that pull towards the world that the 1975 wants us to be in– a boxed echo chamber where "love" is mistaken for lust (see Tootimetootime) or even abandoned as an ideal altogether (see change of heart). A lot of the songs that the 1975 put out in their discography seem to follow a kind of continuity: "The City" is referenced in "A Change of Heart", for example; further reinforcing this emo-sisyphean approach.




In a positive light, the 1975's music is a kind of therapy session for the self, where one feels comfortable to speak their mind without judgment. But this can be seen positively only if we squint at seeing it this way (and even then find it hard to believe); because they blast out or have the vocals still in front of a slow ballad (Be my mistake, Nana, She lays down). One who does this self-therapy, painting emotions and really "dwelling" in it is Grouper (see clearing, I'm clean now and holding). Although in fairness Grouper has a far less reach than the net that the 1975 casts; must one compromise intelligibility for popularity? I don't think so. And it pains me to write this because I do like The 1975 because I also like to dwell while also sing a long to catchy and happy sounding melodies (primed by my love for Death Cab for Cutie), because the paradox of comedy in the light of tragedy seems more real than merely being a sad boi about it (which one usually progresses from and gets tired of eventually). 

So as a band, the 1975 are pretty solid. But they can't teach me anything that I don't already know. They can be clever while never having any value other than being a point of reflection for why their brand of pseudo-sorrowful comfort beats seemed like a good solution to escape it all, but when out of it, you realize that they never really provided any new insight– they are such beautiful post-scripts to more serious work yet so unaware of it.


Sunday, March 22, 2020

20 Years of We Have the facts and We're Voting Yes

03/21/2020
Blog 5: 20 Years of We Have the facts and We're Voting Yes

Today marks the 20th anniversary of Death Cab for Cutie's 2nd studio album "We Have the Facts and We're Voting Yes". To many die hard fans, this is considered the best album that Death Cab has ever put out. The finer details of how great this album is may be of value to a very small pocket of the Death Cab community and is thus likely to be largely of no interest to the mainstream. However, for those people that were and are being affected by it, there is definitely a reason for following along the legacy it began. 

I think that We Have the Facts lies at the heart of what Death Cab for Cutie is all about. It is the album where you can listen to a band that has found its footing in their songwriting; where they commit to a sound that is uniquely theirs. We can see Ben Gibbard's poignant story telling ability of very specific moments of his life interlaced with melodies that sound happy but saccharine. Couple this with Chris Walla's contribution to the production of the album his intricate guitar work alongside Ben's, mediated by Nick Harmer's best bass work. 

This album was released before I will Follow You Into The Dark or Transatlanticism, both mainstream successes (the former a single and the latter a treasured LP) that put Death Cab on the map. The pressure to record and write wasn't driven by momentum but rather from a commitment to the arts. Ben Gibbard drums on most of the songs in this album because their previous drummer had quit the band for a more stable line of work. From being a hobby band with a quirky name, Death Cab at this point committed to a serious project, wanting to see how things play out with the chemistry and synergy of its band members. 


With all this historical context, We Have the Facts' spirit and driving force is established; but what about the content itself? How should one listen to the album? Well, the album is widely accepted to be a concept album; an album where all the songs contribute to the whole album, centered around a theme. Many tout the concept of this album to represent a story about a "ruined relationship", essentially making it a breakup album. I hesitate to commit to this, especially when you listen to the album trying to convince yourself that it is the case. But there is precedent, of course, and remains one way to interpret the album. Before Genius lyrics was a thing, songmeanings.com was the place to discuss lyrics and the song in general (those "good ol' days").

I imagine the "breakup" interpretation to go along these lines– the first song, "Title track" sets the stage for shaky foundations in the relationship. That ending mantra at the outro, "I rushed this, we moved too fast, tripped into the guest room", sums up this sentiment. 

Next, we have "The Employment Pages", where the narrator tells of the circumstances the relationship finds itself in "occupying the cracks of the urban streets".  This song would thus be providing more context on the setting but witholding any direct sentiments about the relationship, instead focusing on the frustration on finding employment (playing music so loud the neighbors ask them to turn it down). This follows "Title Track"'s sense of foreboding. We have a relationship that began from a one night stand that was doomed to fail. "And it was true that I was truly failing". What makes the "breakup album" interpretation strong here is because this line on its own merely speaks frustration about not finding work but is more cathartic when considered in what's to come. But the narrator is restless while being "Idle now, [he rearranges] the furniture as [she] sleeps", trying to be productive. We can see the female counterpart in the relationship as not very active, and by a stretch, indifferent to the scenario. She was "gone and [the narrator] was home calling around" for work. 

Connecting the dots
The third song, For What Reason, finally comes to the fore, building up from a soft piano/guitar intro to a loud and brazen declaration "This won't be the last you hear of me, it's just the start!". We get a clue to the off-stage breakup and how this song denotes that "bitterness I can't foresee". We can infer that this was not a clean breakup– she was apologizing with "phrases like 'I thought you knew' while keeping me in hot pursuit". She has moved on, perhaps rather quickly to someone else, while leading the narrator on all along. And the narrator had to connect the dots, "tracing the plot finds" to imagine "skin touching [each other's] skin" and how "absence follows". For the breakup interpretation, we still don't have the whole picture: okay she did a dick move by leading him on, maybe keeping him as a backup but what do the previous songs have to do with this? Well, Title Track establishes her allure: "I must admit I was charmed by your advances, your advantage left me helplessly into you"; and despite his best efforts! "I tried my best to keep my distance from your dress but call-response overturns convictions every time". And the Employment pages metaphorically shows how much effort the narrator put into improving himself despite "truly failing". This third song solidifies his resolve he sings "In the end, I win every time as ink remains. Sour tastes prevail as you play back the tape machine". He is the poet of this story that everyone will listen to, including her: the song is catchy and sweet but bitter and resentful; which again, is what I think makes Death Cab as a band.

Lowell, Massachusetts 

We have next the fourth song– LowellMa. This song personally has one of my favorite and most intricate bass lines of Death Cab's repertoire. Seems to me that this song was a precursor to a lot of songs about how places have changed (see Why You'd Want to Live HereGold RushYou Moved Away, Teardrop Windows; and to some extent Crooked Teeth, Stable song/Stability, Good help is so hard to find). But I digress. The music is very road-trippy and catchy, which helps drive the point of the lyrics: someone is leaving Lowell, MA. In the Breakup Interpretation, we take this to be the narrator's ex or maybe the narrator himself. This song plays to the "Employment Pages" trope of showing rather than telling. We get a couple of lines describing the city's "cityscapes crumbling... skyscrapers sink into the ground". But the two main catchy lines that repeat over and over, "I thought that you had come to expect more" and "Don't go holding out on me now". Metaphors abound, the city itself could be a metaphor for the relationship "crumbling". There's nothing left, not even the music from the radio towers as he drives away. Is this the song that he's referring to in For What Reason? Possibly but it's very tongue in cheek (I mean all of the songs themselves are, aren't they?). With this set down, we move on to the next song. (Though I do admit that this is where Jack Kerouac was born and we know Ben likes him a lot, especially On the Road and Big Sur, much like the 1975 does but I digress).

Interstate 405

405 is the 5th song in the album, extending the "Lowell, Ma" driving metaphor interstate. Meditating on the 405 interstate, the narrator takes the highway to be a metaphor for their relationship. The first line of both verses provide these moments of commentary: "I took the 405 and drilled a stake down into your center and stated that it's never ever been better than this" and "Misguided by the 405 'cause it lead me to an alcoholic summer, I missed the exit to your parents' house hours ago". Here's another instance of the particularity of Ben's songwriting: the 405 is very confusing to drive in and I imagine pre-Waze/Google maps it'd be a nightmare for someone not seasoned in its twists and turns. This is the path of the relationship that the two take and the narrator plays with, following with lyrics harkening back to the bitter resentment of For What Reason– "You keep twisting the truth, that keeps me thrown askew". Underlying these poignant remarks, more narration of how the relationship went is sung "I hung my favorite shirt on the floorboard, wrinkled up from pulling, pushing and tasting, tasting" and "red wine and the cigarettes, hide your bad habits underneath the patio, patio". The mismatch and masks that was done to keep up appearances, give small hints of vice and inauthenticity. Driving away seemed to be the solution in Lowell, Ma, but 405 pushes back, haunting the activity with wavering regret (the bass lines intermittent booming helps highlight this). 

More on Car Metaphors

The idea of driving once again continues in the slow Little Fury Bugs. In the context of the breakup interpretation, this is a song where the narrator is addressing his ex. There's usually a point of contention here about this because the song seems to be about opportunistic fake friends, or what Ben refers to as "casual friends". But I think this is only one side of the song. The narrator's observations about these friends that only remember her name are juxtaposed with his growing feeling of dissatisfaction in the relationship. What makes the song powerful is how these feelings are portrayed musically. The first verse all the way through the chorus and second verse has just guitars playing a slow, sleepy tune, reflecting the boredom of these "casual" friends and their superficial intentions. The second verse represents the other side, the dissatisfied side. The narrator felt more at home in the back of the car– that is, these trips were more homelike than home, which we could infer as the core of his relationship. He lulls about this trip with the most watered down description: "through the evening the engine kept on, until we hit Chicago and decided to stop". It's at this point where the chorus, the initial dismissive thought "but you're always on time, so", is repeated with a loud kick drum. This is repeated twice before the guitars take over to lull the tune back to the beginning again (similar to Title Track's outro). 

"Company call" can refer to the director addressing the "company" during rehearsals or after a show (as opposed to a curtain call where the company comes at the end and bows to the audience)

And we've arrived at the climax of the album: Company Calls. The song begins with a short dancing drum and guitar introduction before the narrator sings one of the most bittersweet and catchy melodies in the album. It's honestly hard to describe this song because it's better to just listen to it but here we go. The song is sonically very "hi-fi" (like in the second verse of Title track where before the recording sounded "lo-fi", meant to talk about the transition into the new millenium in a very tongue-in-cheek way as it was released in the turn of the century). Because of this hi-fi, it sounds like a proper indie-rock-pop sound, where the narrator is addressing the general audience (while obviously referring to the ex). The lyrics, at first are different than the previous intimate ones. Maybe this was the one that he was referring to in For What Reason. But as a whole, the story follows that the narrator heard of his ex getting engaged. We have another style of lyrical writing that Ben uses that is more "show" than tell. These lyrics seem more a collection of distinct writings, pithy expressions that describe how he felt upon receiving word, with the chorus being the only one with direct reference to the institution of marriage qua "mock-shrine". Perhaps these were thoughts he had meant to send in the postcard he'd send, expressing the intention to "keep [his] distance 'cause the complications cloud it all". But just like Title Track, which I think this song has a spiritual connection with, he's not over it, with the most indulgent confession: "Your wedding figurines: I'd melt so I could drink them in". 

The music slows down at this point, with descending guitar and drum figures but no drums; begetting the sound of a xylophone playing an ascending/descending line, expressing ambivalence. Is he going to mail a greeting or attend the wedding and indulge in that fantasy? After dwelling on this, the song picks back up again and recapitulates back to the first verse: 
I'll take the best of your bad moods and dress them up to make a better you, cause all the company calls amount to one paycheck.
He has decided his fate: looks like he will go after all and not only that, he will take this sentiment: to convince her that he's better for her and can make a "better you" out of her; all while at the wedding which he neither part of the "company" (theater term to refer to the actors that make up the play) nor is he paying for it.

Wedding Crashers, am I right? (copyright NY times)

Company Calls Epilogue follows immediately after its namesake, picking up from the narrator's resolve to act on his heart's drunken desire and to tie up the loose ends of its strings. With an electric guitar and a microphone with a delayed drunken reverb effect, the voice that rings through is both lucid and opaque. He quotes the line he sung in Company Calls: "Synapse to synapse, the possibility's thin" resolving the prediction that "possibilities will thin or fade", choosing the former. To further the unity of the concept album, the repeated phrase "synapse to synapse" seems remarkably close to For What Reason's "skin touching skin" and alludes to the "Absence follows" lyric after. Our narrator sings while at the wedding itself, using present tense to express "I'm dressed up for free drinks and family greetings on your wedding... date". His intentions were put into action, he did indeed take the plastic figures on their wedding cake but doesn't directly say that he's melted it, yet. He describes them as being "so real", despite being fake plastic. Is he doing the right thing? He also follows up more sentiments he wrote, addressing his initial decision to stay away: "And I kept a distance, the complications cloud". He describes how he received the invite as an email invite with a picture of "girls with pigtails" running from "little boys wearing bowties their parents bought". 

But with all this, he nevertheless is at the wedding, with the pre-chorus to chorus narrating: 
"Crashing through the parlor doors, what was your first reaction? Screaming, drunk, disorderly, I'll tell you mine. You were the one, but I can't spit it out when the date's been set. The white routine to be ingested inaccurately." 
Oh yes, he fully intends to melt those plastic figurines to "ingest [them] inaccurately", which is dark and indulgent but fully permissible in its cathartic clothing, driven by a mad passion for this one alluring girl; his own writing being used against him. More imagery and recapitulation of "synapse to synapse" comes in the second first while adding comments about how marriages don't normally end well: "people would turn to see who's making the racket. It's not the first time"... "when the casualty rate's near 100 percent, and there isn't a pension for second best or for hardly moving". He's airing out his pessimistic perception of how this whole thing will turn out, but is it for love anymore? Wasn't the narrator regretful of the relationship which largely wavered while he was in it? What did the Employment Pages or Little Fury Bugs accomplish if not to help him recognize that the relationship wasn't as he thought it was? But even if the lyrics say so, the music disagrees and paints these emotions in ruinous beauty. The pre-chorus chorus lines repeat over and over after this, ending with a repeated guitar riff on G, which feels like it wants to go somewhere but it doesn't, instead the whole band (drums, bass and acoustic guitar) and a piano (that sounds like the xylophone from the previous song) dwell with the motif building up to an A major and F minor, chords that do not resolve the song but rather give a feeling of defeat and resignation after putting a lot of effort and the frustration that comes along with it.

The band drops out and we're left with a lo-fi acoustic guitar playing the chorus and a filter on the voice, the haunting delay removed, showing a unity between intentions; singing purely with a slight alteration to the lyric– instead of "you were", we get:
"You are the one, but I can't spit it out when the date's been set. The white routine to be ingested inaccurately"
"An homage to the one the narrator lost"

Almost like an epilogue to the epilogue (or perhaps the ending credits song), the next track is No Joy in Mudville. This song begins with a xylophone, bass, slow kick-drum pattern and guitar introduction. Going full on break-up interpretation (ignoring the references to Lou Reed's musical career), this song situates itself as an homage to the one the narrator lost. More with the very specific lyric-writing, this song indulges in what the narrator sees as the city of New York in the eyes of his ex and the influence she had on it as "the king of a gloomy disruption that surfaced when you would sing". He seems to be retracing the steps of where she thought was important "to a brownstown up three flights of stairs" and "reading the pavement in every word you would speak". Again, this is one of those songs that are hard to maintain with the breakup interpretation. Another way to take this in the context of the album would be that the song seems to be aimed at "Lou Reed" and his influence on New York but see it as an allusion to his relationship with her. Not totally incomprehensible but not something that I can totally commit myself to. But nevertheless the lyrics are somewhat sweet "the overturned kick drum boom set the pace with incomparable cool, and if the tempo was lousy it was lost on all but you and your studies of fringe New York streets". Maybe there is some love and appreciation expressed lucidly after the catharsis of Company calls epilogue.

O-chem, anybody?

To tie it all off, the final track of We Have the Facts is Scientist Studies. Ben comes back to the setting he built on The Employment Pages, complementing the times of unemployment with the problems of rent and utilities: "Cold skin and bones and this latitude; we ain't paying until the heat comes through." and "Promises of payment were upon your shoulders constantly". This is another song that challenges the breakup interpretation, because I see it more directly as a song about how the band has committed itself to being their full-time occupation and also I believe Ben was an environmental science major ("but don't forget to entertain cause this is your first defense"). Although, there isn't any reason why they are mutually exclusive. The context drives the spirit which drives the content. In fact, this could be a sign that the narrator is looking more at the big picture of it all. He says "Four-year offense to the devoted type. I may have got an invitation, but I wasn't invited. But I thought that this meant something more than broken hearts and new addictions". Turning to college and the problems with rent, I think the person the narrator is addressing is himself, as he's turned to the arts as his defense. As the outro goes: "this is a first defense. This was a first defense. This is my last defense" (looks like some alpha-omega allusions played with). And these final lyrics to the album are topped off with a long held guitar chord, which then gets amplified with one tone that builds up to a deafening noise, held for about 10 seconds before it cuts off and the album ends. The clever context here is that this kind of feedback sound occurs after leaving your amplifier on after you strummed the last cord. It's as if the narrator has walked away from the music, leaving the feedback on before coming back to turn it off and end it for good. 

For me, this kind of intricacy that the band puts that allows for competing interpretations to hold true speaks of the universality of it. We can indulge into the concept album or listen to the songs on their own and relate to the songs from our own background. Music beckons the past, present and future and gathers it together to create a universal truth. I remember first listening to Title Track with headphones in after having listened to it on speakers. That lo-fi to hi-fi bit was insane. The song was catchy and I didn't even delve on the lyrics except for the ending outro. But also when I hear this song, I think of my own experiences and how they either do or do not measure up to this song as well as thinking of the intention behind the author as well. Listening to the album now at its 20th anniversary points to a future where I think there's always something to take and to give with this album moving forward. For me, and probably for many other fans, this album is timeless and something that should be celebrated, something to come and gather us all to listen in on the record that made the band who they are. 

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Psychiatry, Health, and Phenomenology

February 19, 2020
Blog 3: Psychiatry, Health, and Phenomenology

Credit: Chris Gash

These past few weeks, I've been ruminating on ideas brought up in my bioethics class and mind-body physiology class, particularly about psychiatry. My bioethics professor specializes in neuroethics and brought up how neuroscience is progressing more and more towards fully understanding acute pain through brain scans and what not (that is, the mind-body connection in terms of actualizing subjective acute pain and quantifying/qualifying it from the outside via scans). Intrigued, I asked about psychological pain. He winced a bit and commented that I've just opened pandora's box. In brief, he explained that psychiatry doesn't really follow the framework of the traditional framework for medicine in its epistemology, conceptual frameworks and ethics (that is, the connection between what we know from empirical approaches and what we do about them).

My professor said that psychiatry, and to a large extent most complementary and alternative approaches, act on the principle of abductive reasoning (or "ex juvatibus" reasoning). This can be conceptualized best, I think, in a proposition:

Y --> "X" <--> Z

Here we can think of Y as "treatment", X as the hidden mechanism and Z as the desired outcome. Between administering a treatment Y and the outcome Z, psychiatry does not have thoroughly detailed mechanisms to understanding why things work compared to biological diseases. I thought of schizophrenia as a counter-example and my professor rebutted saying that one may think we know so much about schizophrenia through serotonin receptors and what not; but really, we are far from understanding what it is, opting instead to treat people with an x amount of factors (arbitrary) that may bring up schizophrenia without actually knowing why it is that these factors make up schizophrenia. 

The mere order of events of treatment Y to outcome Z (feeling better/less symptoms) is a fallacy (post hoc fallacy) that is mitigated by the scientific method. At its most basic form people are compared with similar symptoms and are given different treatments to examine the outcome of Z or are given no treatment and see if one feels better (Z). As science is more confident of the correlation between Y and Z, one may be prompted to investigate these middle terms (X or perhaps more middle terms, more mechanisms) to fully understand how treatment Y works. Psychiatry is far from this aspect of the process compared to the understanding of pneumonia, for example.

But psychiatry's problems are the tip of the iceberg for medicine in general. Broadly, medicine is moving more towards a more holistic definition of health (biopsychosocial model for example); but only in a perfect world does theory lead directly to praxis in a good way. In reality, the practice of medicine can work, or often rely, on this ex juvantibus reasoning, focusing on the effect of the treatment (because of the effect) that drives the reason for doing it rather than work of existing literature suggesting some kind of effect. 

Without these classes, I would've hit the iceberg and sunk in a quagmire of cognitive dissonance. So far, my mind-body physiology class has brought together my thoughts on this small intersection between the inner life and the biological life. We can see this best through this example of psychiatry, where I think the integrative aspect towards holistic rather than purely reductionistic frameworks shines through best.

Iceberg Metaphor, from Open textbook hong kong

Treating psychiatric disorders involves balancing what can be done physiologically or pharmaceutically with what can be done cognitively or existentially (what my professor calls balancing "equipoise"). While focusing on the effect of a treatment and building one's clinical knowledge on this (casuistry) is one way of healthcare (and has been for many thousand years with Chinese medicine, ayurveda, etc.), modern medicine is more comfortable knowing that what is being done is precise and accurate. Having one effect may be one thing but giving a treatment and having multiple effects would cause a headache. To steer clear of this, the balance of weights (equipoise) here rests on the other side of the coin in the "mind-body" schemata; the mind and its experience of illness. Whereas disease is viewed physiologically, illness is experienced phenomenologically; linked together almost in a Cartesian unity. The mind being seated somewhere, somehow (be it spiritually or from a complex neural network system that regulates itself through supervenience), in the body (or with the body?). However, there are other ways to think about this that doesn't have to fall into a dualistic dogma that is then easily dismissed afterwards. 

I propose that phenomenology is this central alternative framework to balancing this problem of psychiatry's constellation of emotions, behaviors, thought patterns, etc. with the physiologic manifestations. Phenomenology's slogan, according to its "founder" Edmund Husserl, is to return to the things themselves; that is– the phenomena– rooted in the subject's experience and interpretation. There is something irreconcilable about one's experience of his phenomena that cannot be accounted for in his physiology. We can learn a great deal about how this is done through the existential phenomenologists such as Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, for the foundational thinkers; and to Medard Boss, Frederik Svenaeus and Richard Zaner for the more medically focused phenomenologists. 

If we take the example of schizophrenia and try to conduct a phenomenology of it as an illness, one must consult the paradigm schizophreniac and engage in a shared investigation into what it means to live with schizophrenia. How phenomenology differs from the usual way that psychiatry investigates this is that phenomenology "brackets" aside any other kind of pre-conceived notions when describing the phenomena. When a schizophreniac talks about hearing "voices" in their head, a phenomenologist would not point at hallucinations related to an upsurge in dopamine in a specific area of the brain, for example. Neither would she try to think about how she hears voices in her head (her internal voice, her imagined voice of her mother speaking or a deeply rooted childhood phobia of horses manifested in a deep male voice, for example). These pre-theoretical assumptions or "biases" affect the understanding the phenomena of schizophrenia, leading astray the phenomena itself.

Questions that can come up when conducting a phenomenology would be, to begin broadly, "how does the world show up for you?", or if not asking it directly, it can be a driving question framing the phenomenological inquiry. The ways in which the patient responds could then drive the meaning-making or interpretation that the investigator is trying to get the patient to disclose. This is where integrative medicine shines through, which defines health largely in the context of the relationship between the practitioner and the patient. From this carefully considered inquiry, I think that treatment outcomes can be improved in this reflective way, especially since the patient is involved in this process of understanding an illness that is solely his. 

While I've above described in broad strokes how a phenomenology of schizophrenia could be conducted (at least in a mediating relationship between a practitioner/investigator and the patient), I don't mean to say that phenomenology should be done alone in the clinic. Rather, I think that this method can be a methodological framework for a more patient-centered approach when considering treatment. Phenomenology can be a useful tool in a practitioner's kit of conceptual tools that they can use to help the patient be restored to health.

Still from Terrence Malick's Tree of Life

Health here, as I re-emphasize, is intrinsically united by its biological, social and psychological parts. And so when a psychiatrist, for example, desires to use pharmaceuticals to address a patient's low levels of serotonin, he is also aware of the socio-cultural and psychological (and might I add, existential) dimensions of the treatment. In integrative medicine, the psychiatrist may add suggestions on changing one's approaches to eating (both biological via nutrition and the social dimension of eating) as well as employ mindfulness based stress reduction techniques or cognitive behavioral therapy designed to address the patient's mental-existential faculties and to be aware of changes that he may not altogether expect. 

Every person, according to Heidegger, has an ontological characteristic of "thrownness", or the sense of being thrown into the world, not deciding before hand to live in this time period or be put in this cultural and socio economic context. Nevertheless, one still feels embodied and immersed in the world. One way in which the patient may interact with the world is through the body (Merleau-Ponty, Zaner)– that physiological make up that affects the way the world shows up for us (either very obviously as in getting a paper cut and experiencing a deep seething pain or more implicitly in a sense of unease at the end of the day that may be attributable to food consumption or serotonin levels). While scientists may observe from the outside changes in serotonin levels or blood clotting factors rising, that is not how the phenomena of an illness is grasped in its entirety. Illness relates heavily with a person's being. As Svenaeus suggests, illness is an unhomelike "being-in-the-world", which refers to a sense of uncaniness when engaging with the world, usually resulting in the rather 'passive' sense of the body coming to the forefront as an active constituent of the world to pay attention to. 

Person falling. Source: google images
On the flip side of the coin, there are certain mechanisms that we do understand that can contribute to systemwide changes in the body from the mind; this is what I'm learning about in my mind-body physiology class and is why I think it is pivotal to the intersection between biomedicine and phenomenology. I've been learning about how cortisol, the main stress hormone, has overarching effects on different systems by interacting with the HPA axis (hypothalamic pituitary adrenal) in the brain. An increased amount of cortisol produces the stress response, and when exposed to chronic stress, lower levels of estrogen and testosterone are affected downstream, leading to infertility or other syndromes; growth hormone is decreased (leading to low protein synthesis, immunity, glucose); thyroid hormone levels are lowered, resulting in lower basal metabolic rate (and hence lower fatigue).

The relationship between the rest of the organs with the HPA axis is rather fascinating and has a strong implication towards the role of the mind in perceiving stress, which can be physical, social, mental, or existential. But as far as we understand them as mere "objects" of scientific inquiry, we must not forget the strength of the phenomenological perspective when exploring illness. These physiological mechanisms work in such a way (a naturalistic way) to present and contribute to the phenomena that the patient experiences (the "life-world", as Husserl put it), which is always already interpreted as the act is happening. The relationship to the phenomena for the patient is thus personal.

The care of the patient means that the patient should be cared for (Peabody, 1927), and if medicine is to progress, it must take care in balancing the multi-dimensional aspect of a human being: their existential, biological, social, psychological layers entwined in an inseparable, indivisible unity. I think it's human nature to be rather curious about oneself; but this can happen only when one is open to be so– that is, when one's body and mind is free to attend to its inherent sense of wonder. But what happens when one is ill and cannot help but attend to their sickness? Is it not similar to when one is too busy to stop and smell the flowers? This is why I don't think that we could be content in our modern secular age with reasoning focused only on the effect, especially in the ethics of healthcare. This consequentialist approach lacks the driving force of the cause, the explanation of the how entangled in the why. So we must investigate beyond merely the ordering of events in ex juvantibus reasoning (X treatment happens then after the Z effect happens) and inquire into the physiological, neurological, existential, social, anthropological, psychological aspects of human being and the ambiguous milieu its being is enmeshed with.